In a sense, the Constitutional Tribunal recognized that the president may freely interfere in any court proceedings, said constitutionalist Marcin Matczak, commenting on the Constitutional Tribunal’s ruling related to the pardoning of Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik years ago before the verdict became final. The expert pointed out that the issue “was not whether the president has the right of clemency”, but “whether he can interfere with the powers of the court.”
The Constitutional Court ruled on Friday that “the power of pardon is the exclusive and uncontrollable power of the president“, and the Supreme Court “has no competence to exercise control” over this action. Mariusz Kaminski (now boss MIA and special services coordinator) i Maciej Wasik (currently deputy head of the Ministry of Interior and Administration) and a pardon by Andrzej Duda.
Matczak: Pardoning a person who has not been convicted by a final judgment is like giving a divorce to your fiancé
The ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal was commented on TVN24 by constitutionalist Marcin Matczak from the University of Warsaw. He pointed out that “pardoning an innocent person, i.e. not convicted by a final judgment, is the same as giving a divorce to your fiancé.” “It’s premature,” he said.
He emphasized that “the whole essence of this case was not whether the president has the right of clemency or whether he can use it, but whether the president can interrupt court proceedings with the right of clemency, and therefore whether he can interfere with the powers of the court.” – If the president really waited and allowed the court to settle this case, then the third power, the judiciary, would fully exercise its powers, no one would interfere, and the president would then also be able to apply the power of clemency, so also exercise his powers, which no one would did not interfere, the expert explained.
In his opinion, “this case was about something else.” – The idea was to do it earlier for purely political reasons, so that Mr. Kamiński, Mr. Wąsik could function in public space – said Matczak.
– This is a judgment that shows that the Tribunal sees only one side, the political one, of this case. He does not want to settle the matter in such a way that both the courts and the president can exercise their powers. And in a sense, at that point, the Court recognized that the president was free to interfere in any judicial proceedings, he added.
Main photo source: Tomasz Gzell/PAP